Here is the letter that David J Israel wrote.

Inaccurate bus arrival time display

I arrived for the 2/12 this morning at stop number 45013679 at 08:10. The next bus was showing to arrive at 08:13. At 08:21 I caught the first bus which came along from the stop across the street (450101972) as that came first.

I understand you can't control everything, but at least give us accurate information at the bus stops. Having lived in London for 18 months, both the Tube and Bus networks gave exceptionally accurate information, save for occasions where extraneous events caused problems.

The technology clearly exists and, with recent fare increases, would seem very affordable (it's cheaper to travel by bus in London than Leeds).

I guess I and most of the travelling public would be keen to know when the new accurate system will be installed city-wide.

Thanks.

Metro, the West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive, introduced yournextbus in 2006 and has responsibility for the 1,000 or so real-time shelter displays across West Yorkshire.

The system provides information for all 14,000 West Yorkshire stops and another 20,000 in South & North Yorkshire, the East Riding of Yorkshire and into Derbyshire. London covers 19,000 stops.

The journey on service mentioned was not tracked at the stop in question (450 13679) and therefore a scheduled time was displayed. First should be able to confirm what happened.

Reasons for scheduled instead of actual times appearing can include:

- broken aerial or loss of signal between the bus and the receivers around the county (sometimes due to overhanging trees).

- data mismatch between the journey information the driver types into the ticket machine and what yournextbus is expecting.

- the operator not running the service or terminating it short although operators do have access to a cancellation feature that can show the service as Cancelled on yournextbus displays.

Because it predicts times based upon the whereabouts of the bus and previous journeys, yournextbus can also be thrown sometimes by congestion and severe delays in which case it will re-calculate the expected arrival time. This is why the displays sometimes show the same or even a slightly increased countdown time.

Overall feedback on yournextbus is positive and a recent survey by independent group Passenger Focus found that over 80% of people questioned were very satisfied or satisfied with Metro’s bus stop displays. And in separate research people said they are more likely to use buses because of it.

If errors occur, we don't know about them until they are reported so we welcome feedback such as this, with as much detail as possible on the stop and service, so that we can improve the service.

Metro

Thanks to Metro for stepping in and answering this - the problem was reported on a route (rather than an issue with the bus stops), which is why it was sent to First Leeds. An understandable mix-up, as it concerns the route as a whole - and we're working on improving the distinction.

Thank you both for your comments.

I'm sure most people, like me, make little distinction between operator and PTE. Indeed, as PTE, my guess is you will be pushing the operators to provide, for example, drivers able to input the correct information into their ticket machines.

Also note your comment that the system is bigger than London's. Perhaps, therefore, the system ought to be sliced into more manageable sizes so that, like London, it works. I do appreciate that the list of standard reasons why things might not work do have an air of truth in them, but, for example, if you know overhanging trees could be a problem then is the solution to cut them back (working with the Council) or to make sure bus aerials are part of the (I would hope) minimum weekly safety checks done on the buses?

Without having the actual statistic of 80% explained (hence it's a meaningless stat) I too think the idea of the displays are fantastic. Not sure I understand the difference between the dot matrix ones and TV style displays. Having said that, if all they do is display scheduled times then save the money and put more clearly readable and understandable paper timetables in bus stops. Cheaper to run and don't suffer from overhanging trees, dodgy inputting and broken aerials.

I like the idea of the system, but no point having it/using it/relying on it if there's not 100% commitment put in to make it work properly.

We are glad you like the system and can assure you there is 100% commitment from Metro to making yournextbus work properly. As well as our own developments with the third-party service provider, we hold regular meetings with the bus operators to ensure they remain fully behind the scheme, which stands to increase their passenger numbers.
There is also an open-top bus which is used not for sight-seeing but for light pruning on key routes, and the TV-style screens are cheaper than the dot-matrix versions which meant we were able to make the funding go further and provide them at more stops.
The report for the Passenger Focus survey can be found at http://bit.ly/Jd5yvm although it is only a summary and does not show the results on electronic information which was in the initial report we received.

I do appreciate that this site elicited comments from various public bodies, but I simply got the standard response to the issues I raised. I really doubt that trees are such the major cause of inaccurate information.

In eighteen months of living in London, with all the intricacies and complications a major city like London, I had fewer unexpected delays and late running services (tube and bus) than I have had in a few months of being back in Leeds.

The information we receive at bus stops is simply inaccurate and, therefore, ineffective. We would be better sticking to the paper timetables, instead of spending money telling people what they can read on the timetable.